Chiming in, philosophically, again: The analogy with physical parts (atoms, quarks, etc.) may be misleading. While objects might in principle be always further divisible, information, in any practical context, is not so.
Generally, a single character or sound is not an assertable, and building a wiki around them as "the smallest fragments" would be pretty silly. Just like "Among the things I learned by listening to the radio this morning is... [insert a single .2-second-long phoneme-sound recording]" You're not going to extract a bit of information out of those phonemes until you introduce a tiddler that strings them into an order; only THEN have you got an assertable. OR, you're actually putting a microscope on that sound (for info correlating with its resonance or waveform or transmission quality, etc.), and it's simply not a simple anymore. ;) In other words, a single character can corresponds to an assertable in some circumstances: a typographer may want to track what's involved in rendering Q in Palatino, for example. But then the information at issue is much more fine-grained than what we normally mean by hailing the character Q as a minimal building-block (treating its many typographical shape-structures as artibrarily fungible instances). Similarly, a fish icon (or the 2-byte character for fish: 魚) might count as an inscrutable simple in some context, but I will want a whole tiddler for it exactly when getting that icon/character to render, or being able to reproduce its stroke-order, or understanding its compositional and historical relation to other characters, is a domain for more detailed information. If there's no assertable, there's nothing worth tiddling with. And as soon as something's assertible, it's not a conceptual simple anymore, because information involves synthesis. So it seems to me. I welcome a counterexample if you can think of one... (Where this comes from, in my own thinking, emerges out of C S Peirce's logic and semiotics... with Peirce, along with his penpal Lady Welby, playing a significant role in the (pre-)history of computing...) -Springer On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 2:49:13 PM UTC-4, HansWobbe wrote: > > I have several and would be happy to share. > > I do think it's a bit of a bootstrapping exercise since we would have to > agree on what a particular character means. Fortunately, It has been my > experience that this type of communications, within a TiddlyWiki wrapper, > can scale up very quickly; so you and I really should do some tests. > > I'll think about what a good starting point might be and post further > before the weekend ends. > > Thanks for expressing an interest in this. > > Cheers, > Hans > > > On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 12:48:42 PM UTC-4, TiddlyTweeter wrote: >> >> Hans >> >> Has anyone made a wiki of single characters? One per Tiddler. >> >> It would be an interesting experiment. >> >> Let's do it. >> >> TT >> >> On Wednesday, 3 June 2020 22:41:11 UTC+2, HansWobbe wrote: >>> >>> I think the ultimate answer to *"When does a part stop being a >>> fragment?" *may be "when the fragment is Indivisible.". >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/9d2cf318-7c8d-4599-955f-b4f6902cae05o%40googlegroups.com.
